FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 25, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK 

### [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 11628 D . C . D oc ke tN o. C V - 05- 00530 T H E R E S A M A R I E S C H I N D L E R S C H I A V O , i nc apa c i t a t e d e x r e l , R obe r tS c hi ndl e ra nd M ary S ch i n d l er, h er p aren t s an d n ex tfri en d s, P l ai n t i ffs-A p p el l an t s, ve r s us M I C H A E L S C H I A V O , as gu ar di an of the pers on of T he r e s aM a r i e S c hi ndl e rS c hi a vo, i nc apa c i t a t e d, J U D G E G E O R G E W . G R E E R , T H E H O S P I C E O F T H E F L O R I D A S U N C O A S T , I N C ., D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- A ppe a l f r om the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof

F l or i da

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ( M a r c h 25, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L , an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2



### P E R C U R I A M: O urpr e vi ous de c i s i on i n thi s c a s e a f f i rm e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s M a r c h 22, 20 05 deni al of the pl ai nt i ff s’ m ot i on for at em po ra ryre stra i ni ng order a s t o the c l a i m s r a i s e d i n the f

i ve c ount s of

the i ni t i a l c om pl a i ntf

i l e d i n thi s c a s e . S c hi a vo e x r e l. S c h in d le rv . S c h ia v o e x r e l. S c h ia v o , _
__F .3 d ___ , 2 0 0 5 W L 6 4 8 8 9 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . M a r . 23, 2005) ( S c hi a vo I ) , s t a y de ni e d, ___ S . C t . ___, 2005 W L 672685 (M ar . 24 , 20 05 ). A ft erthatappeal w as t aken, the pl ai nt i ff s f i l ed an am ended com pl ai nton M ar ch 22 , 20 05 , addi ng four m ore c ou nt s, and a se cond am ended c o m p la in t o n M a r c h 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , a d d in g af if th c o u n t. O n the basi s of the cl ai m s c on t ai ned i n tho se new coun t s, pl ai nt i ff s a l so fi l ed a s ec on d m ot i on for at em po ra ryre stra i ni ng order. L i ke thei r f i rs tm ot i on for a te m p o r a ry r e s tr a in in g o r d e r , th is o n e s o u g h t a n in ju n c tio n to r e q u ir e th e d e f e n d a n ts t o tr a ns por tT he r e s aM a r i e S c hi ndl e rS c hi a vo t o ahos pi t a l f orr e s t or a t i on of nutr i t i on a nd hy dr a t i on a nd f orm e di c a l tr e a tm e nt . O n the e ve ni ng of M a r c h 24, 2005, the di s tr i c tc our the l d ahe a r i ng on the m ot i on a nd, a f t e rw orki ng thr ough the n ig h t, is s u e d a n o r d e re a r lie rto d a y d e n y in g th e m o tio n . A c o p y o f th a t o r d e ris a tta c h e d a s a n A p p e n d ix to th is o p in io n . W e n o w h av e b efo re u s th e p l ai n t i ffs’ appe a l f r om the or de rde ny i ng tha ts e c ond m ot i on f orat e m por a ry r e s tr a i ni ng order.3



### O urpr i orde c i s i on i n thi s c a s e br i ngs i nt o pl a y the l a w of the c a s e doc tr i ne in s o f a ra s is s u e s w e a d d r e s s e d in o u rM a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 o p in io n a r e c o n c e rn e d .

“ U nde rthe l a w - of

- the - c a s e doc tr i ne , [ the r e s ol ut i on of ] a n i s s ue de c i de d a tone st age of a c as e i s bi nd i ng atl at erst ages of the sa m e c as e. ” T oo l e v. B axt er H e a lth c a r e C o rp ., 2 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e d o c tr in e o p e r a te s to prec l ud e c ou rt s f

rom re vi si t i ng i ss ues thatw er e dec i ded exp l i ci t l y or by nec es sa ry i m pl i ca t i on i n a pri or appeal . L uckey v. M i l l er , 92 9 F . 2d 61 8, 62 1 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ; s e e a ls o B u r g e rK in g C o rp . v . P ilg r im ’s P r id e C o rp ., 1 5 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( “ [T ] he l aw of the ca se encom pass es al l thi ng s dec i ded b y nec es sa ry i m pl i c a t i on a s w e l l a s thos e de c i de d e xpl i c i t l y . ” ( i nt e rna l m a rks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt ed)) . L a w o f th e c a s e b in d s n o t o n ly th e tr ia l c o u r t b u t th is c o u r t a s w e ll. S e e , e .g ., B ur ge rK i ng C orp. , 15 F . 3d a t169 ( “ A s w e ha ve r e pe a t e dl y r e c ogni z e d, f i ndi ngs of f a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w b y a n ap p e lla te c o u r t a r e g e n e r a lly b in d in g in a ll subsequentproceedi ng s i n the sa m e c as e i n the tri al or on a l at erappeal . ” ( i nt ernal m a rks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ) ; L i tm a n v. M a s s . M ut . L i f e I ns . C o. , 825 F . 2d 1506, 15 10 (11th C i r. 19 87 ) ( en banc) (“ T he do ctri ne i s bas ed on the prem i se thatan appel l at e dec i si on i s bi nd i ng i n al l subsequentproceedi ng s i n the sa m e c as e . . . . ”) ; W heel erv. C i ty of P l ea sa ntG rove, 74 6 F . 2d 14 37 , 14 40 (11th C i r. 19 84 ) ( per4



### curi am ) ( “ U nd erthe l aw of the ca se do ctri ne, bo th the di stri ctcourtand the court of appe a l s ge ne r a l l y a r e bound by f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w m a de by the c our tof

appe a l s i n apr i orappe a l of the s a m e c a s e . . . . ” ( i nt e rna l m a rks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ) ; W e s tbr ook v. Z a nt , 743 F . 2d 764, 768 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( “ T he doc tr i ne ge ne r a l l y ope r a t e s t o pr e c l ude ar e e xa m i na t i on of i s s ue s de c i de d upon appe a l , e i the rby the di s tr i c tc our ton r e m a nd orby the appe l l a t e c our ti t s e l f upon a s ubs e que ntappe a l . ” ( i nt e rna l m a rks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ) . A s thi s C our ts i tt i ng en b an c h as ex p l ai n ed , “ F ai l u re t o h o n o r [th e] co m m an d s [o f th e l aw o f th e case doc tr i ne ] c a n onl y r e s ul ti n c ha os . ” L i tm a n, 825 F . 2d a t1511. T here ar e afe w di sc re t e e xcept i on s t o the l aw of the ca se do ctri ne. It“ do es notl i m i tthe c our t ’ s pow e rt o r e vi s i tpr e vi ous l y de c i de d i s s ue s w he n ( 1) ne w a nd s ubs t a nt i a l l y di f

f e r e nte vi de nc e e m e r ge s a tas ubs e que nttr i a l ; ( 2) c ontr ol l i ng a uthor i ty ha s be e n r e nde r e d tha ti s c ontr a ry t o the pr e vi ous de c i s i on; or( 3) the e a r lie rru lin g w a s c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s a n d w o u ld w o rk am a n if e s t in ju s tic e if i m pl e m e nt e d. ” K l a y v. A l l D e f e nda nt s , 389 F . 3d 1191, 1197–98 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e rna l m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o W he e l e r , 746 F . 2d a t1440. N one of tho se exce pt i on s app l y her e. B e c a u s e o u rp r e v io u s d e c is io n w a s p u b lis h e d , th e p r io rp a n e l p r e c e d e n t ru le a l s o appl i e s t o a ny hol di ngs r e a c he d i n the e a r l i e rappe a l . “ U nde rthe5



### w el l -est ab l i sh ed p ri o r p an el p reced en tru l e o f th i s C i rcu i t , th e h o l d i n g o f th e fi rst pa ne l t o a ddr e s s a n i s s ue i s the l a w of thi s C i r c ui t , the r e by bi ndi ng a l l s ubs e que nt panel s unl es s a nd un t i l the fi rs tpanel ’ s hol di ng i s overrul ed by the C ou rtsi tt i ng en b a n c o rb y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t.” S m ith v . G T E C o rp ., 2 3 6 F .3 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 3 0 0 n .8 (11th C i r. 20 01 ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. H og an, 98 6 F . 2d 13 64 , 13 69 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) ; C a r g ill v . T u rp in , 1 2 0 F .3 d 1 3 6 6 , 1 3 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . W he n r e a d a ga i ns tthe l a w of the c a s e doc tr i ne a nd the pr i orpa ne l pr e c e de nt ru l e , o u rMa r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 d e c i s i o n e s t ab l i s h e s th e f o l l o wi n g p r o p o s i t i o n s th a twe t ake a s gi ven i n thi s app ea l : P ub . L . N o. 10 9-3 d oes notsupp l antthe l aw appl i cabl e t o t em po ra ryre stra i ni ng orders or prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on s, S chi avo I, 20 05 W L 64 88 97 , at*2 ; w e have appel l at e j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe deni al of a t em po ra ryre stra i ni ng order i n these ci rc um st ance s a nd tre ati tas the deni al of a prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on or a f i nal j ud gm ent , i d. at*1 ; because the other three prel i m i naryi nj un ct i ve re l i ef fa ct ors a re pres ent , the m er i t s- re l at ed fa ct or i s w hether the pl ai nt i ff

s have s ho w n “ a s ub st ant i al ca se on the m er i t s, ” i d. at*1 –2 ; ou r r evi ew of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of pr e l i m i na ry r e l i e f

i s onl y f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, i d. a t*2; the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng pr e l i m i na ry r e l i e f on the cl ai m s r ai se d i n the fi rs tfi ve coun t s of the com pl ai nt , i d. ; and i nj un ct i ve re l i ef u n d er th e A l l W ri t s A ct , 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 5 1 (a), i s n o tap p ro p ri at e h ere b ecau se i ti s aSe c tio n 1 21 31 (1 ) de fine s “pu bli centity”a s: 1 (A) a ny Stateor loc al g ov ernment; (B ) any depar tme nt, ag ency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality

of a State or States or local g overnment; and (C) the National Railroad Passen g er Corporation, and any commuter a

uthority (as de fined in section 24102(4) of

Title 49). 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). Se c tio n 1 21 81 (7 ) p ro vide s th at: Th efo llo wingprivateentities arec on sidere d pub lica c c omm odatio nsfo r pur po se s o f t his subchapter, if the operations of such entities affe ct commerce— (A) a n inn, ho te l, m ote l, o r o ther plac e of lodg ing , except fo r an e sta bli shment l oc ate d w ithin a buildingthat c ontainsno t mo re than fivero omsfo r rent o r hireand that isa c tually occupie d by

the proprietor of such e stablishment as the residence of such proprietor; (B ) a restaura

nt, bar, or other establishment ser ving f ood or drink; (C) a mot i o n p icture house , theater , concert hall, stadium, or other plac e of exhibition or entertainm ent; (D ) anau di t o ri um , co nv enti o nce nt er , l ec tureh al l , o r o th er p l ac e o f p u

b l i c gath eri n g; (E) a baker y, gro cer y store, clothingstore, hardware store, shoppingcenter, or other sales or rental e sta

bli shment; (F ) a la un dromat , dry-c le aner, ba nk , b arb er s hop, be a

uty sh op , trave l servic e , s ho erepair service , funeral parlor, g as station, officeof an acc ountant or lawyer, pha rmacy, insurance of fi c e , p ro fe ssi on al of

fi c eof a he alth c are prov ider, ho sp ital, or oth er s ervic ee sta

bli shment; 6 

### si tuat i on thatfa l l s w i thi n the sc op e of F ed. R . C i v. P . 65 go verni ng t em po ra ry re stra i ni ng orders and p re l i m i naryi nj un ct i on s, S chi avo I, 20 05 W L 64 88 97 , at *4–5. W e tu rn n o w to th e c la im s th a t w e r e n o t d e c id e d in o u rp r io ro p in io n . C ountS i x of

the a m e nde d c om pl a i ntc l a i m s tha tthe de f e nda nt s ’ a c t i ons vi ol a t e the A m e r ic a n s w ith D is ab ilitie s A c t ( A D A ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 1 e t s e q . W e a g r e e w ith the di s tr i c tc our ttha tD e f e nda ntM i c ha e l S c hi a vo, a s c our tappoi nt e d gua r di a n f or T here saS chi avo, i s nei ther apu bl i c e nt i ty, pu rs uantt o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 21 31 (1), no r a p u b lic a c c o m m o d a tio n , p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . 1 2 1 8 1 ( 7 ) . O u rp r io rd e c is io n in th is 1(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specifie d public transportation; (H) a museum, library, g allery, or other place of public display

or collec tion; (I) a pa rk, zoo, amusement par

k, or other place of

recreation; (J) a nursery, elementa

ry, seconda

ry, undergradua

te, or postgraduate private school, or other placeof educ ation; ( K) a d ay c are c ent er , s en i o r c i ti z en c ent er , h o m e l e s s s h e l t er , f o o d b ank , a do p t i o na g e n c y, or other soc ial servicecenter establishment; and (L) a gy mnasium, he alth spa, bowlingalley, g olf course , or other place of exercise or recreation. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). No nethe le ss, wetakethi s opp or tunity to expound

on there a so ni ng behind

our f ir st 2 de c isi on ’sc on c lus ion

that th ethre ede fendantsag ains t who m in junc tiv ere lie f i s sought a

reno t state actor s. Plaintiffs’ argument that Michae l Schiavo is a state actor is that he is one be causehe used the state c ourt s to deprive his wi fe of her ri ghts . To the c ontrary, “ on e wh o ha s o bt ain ed a s tate court order or judgment is not eng ag ed in state action mere ly beca use [he] used the state court leg al p ro c e s s . ”C o b b v . G a . P o w er C o . , 7 5 7 F . 2 d

1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ; s e eal s o H ar v ey v . H ar

v ey, 949 F. 2 d 1 1 2 7 (11th Cir. 1992) (no state action where husband use d courts to havehis wife c ommitt e d toa state mental hosp ital, be c a us e “ [u]se of c ourt s by private pa rtie s doe s n ot c on stitute an ac t under c olor of state la w”) ; Dahl v. Akin, 630 F.2d 277, 281 ( 5th Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs argue that Judge Greer i s a state actor simply beca use he is a state judg e. That does not follow. See Paisey

v. Vitale, 807 F .2d 889, 893–94 (11th Cir. 1986) (“ Obviously the merefac t that Judg eVitaleis n ame d a s a de fendant doe s no t c re ate the re quisite state inv olv e ment, ”be c a us e “[p] rovidinga neutral forum f or adjudication is an essentially neutral act.”) . 7 

### c a s e e s t abl i s he s , a s the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d, tha tM i c ha e l S c hi a vo i s nota c t i ng unde rc ol orof

s t a t e l a w i n the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s e i the r . S c hi a vo I , 2005 W L 64 88 97 , at*2 (“ F or the re as on s e xp l ai ned i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s opi ni on , w e a gree tha tthe pl a i nt i f

f s ha ve f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e as ubs t a nt i a l c a s e on the m e r i t s of a ny of the i rc l a i m s . ” ) ; s e e a l s o S c hi a vo e x r e l . S c hi ndl e rv. S c hi a vo, ___ F . S upp. 2d

___, 2005 W L 648897, A pp. a t*13 ( M . D . F l a . M a r . 22, 2005) ( f i ndi ng tha tthe d efen d an t s w ere n o tact i n g u n d er co l o r o f st at e l aw ). U n d er th e l aw o f th e case do ctri ne and the pri or panel prec edentrul e, thatse tt l es the st at e a ct i on i ss ue. 2Finally, plaintiffs contend that the Hospice is a state ac tor bec ause it re ceive s Medicare and

Medicaid money . T h e S up re me Court has repeate dly held, however, that fe deral money does not trans fo rm private pers on s or entitie s into s tatea c tor s. Se e , e .g ., S.F . Art s &Athletic s, Inc . v . U .S. Oly mpic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 544, 107 S. Ct. 2971, 2985 (1987); Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S. Ct . 2777, 2789 (1982); Rende ll-Bak er v. Kohn, 477 U.S. 830, 840, 102 S. Ct . 2764, 2770 (1982). 8 

### T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t is a ls o c o rr e c t th a t D e f e n d a n t H o s p ic e o f

F lo r id aS u n c o a s t, I nc . i s nota“ publ i c e nt i ty ” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the A D A . S e e 42 U . S . C . §§ 12 13 1(1)(A )–(C ). A ss um i ng i ti s apl ac e of “ pu bl i c a cc om m od at i on , ” the pl ai nt i ff s s t i l l ha ve notm a de as ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng on thi s c l a i m . T he H os pi c e di d not r e m ove nutr i t i on a nd hy dr a t i on a nd w i thhol d m e di c a t i on f r om T he r e s aS c hi a vo

“ on the ba s i s of

[ he r ] di s abi l i ty . ” I ns t e a d, the H os pi c e t ook the s e a c t i ons pur s ua nt t o ava l i d c our tor de r . T he A D A w a s ne ve ri nt e nde d t o pr ovi de a n a ve nue f or c ha l l e ngi ng c our tor de r s i n t e rm i na t i on of c a r e c a s e s . S e e B ry a ntv. M a di ga n, 84 F . 3d 246, 249 ( 7th C i r . 1996) ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe A D A “ w oul d notbe vi ol a t e d by a p ri so n ’ s si m p l y fai l i n g t o att en d t o th e m ed i cal n eed s o f i t s d i sab l ed p ri so n ers” an d th atth e st atu t e “ d o es n o tcreat e a rem ed y fo r m ed i cal m al p ract i ce”); see al so C a s h v. S m i th, 231 F . 3d 1301, 1305 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( “ C a s e s de c i de d unde rthe R e h ab ilita tio n A c t a r e p r e c e d e n t f o rc a s e s u n d e rth e A D A , a n d v ic e - v e r s a .” ) . C ou ntS even as se rt s acl ai m agai nstthe D ef endantH ospi ce unde r§ 504 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 19 73 , as am ended, 29 U . S . § 7 94 . A s the di stri ctcourt e x p la in e d , T h e r e s aS c h ia v o is n o t “o th e rw is e q u a lif ie d ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th is9



### A ct“ because s he w ou l d n othave had any need for a f ee di ng tub e t o d el i ver nutr i t i on a nd hy dr a t i on butf orhe rm e di c a l c ondi t i on. ” S c hi a vo e x r e l . S c hi ndl e rv. S chi avo, ___ F . S up p. 2d ___, 20 05 W L 67 72 24 , at*3 (M . D . F l a. M ar . 25 , 20 05 ); se e G rz an v. C hart erH osp. of N orthw es tIndi ana, 10 4 F . 3d 11 6, 12 1 (7th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( “G r z a n is n o t ‘o th e rw is e q u a lif ie d ’ b e c a u s e , ab s e n t h e rh a n d ic ap , s h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n e lig ib le f o rtr e a tm e n t in th e f

ir s t p la c e .” ) . T h e R e h ab ilita tio n A c t, l i ke the A D A , w a s ne ve ri nt e nde d t o appl y t o de c i s i ons i nvol vi ng the t e rm i na t i on of l i f e s uppor torm e di c a l tr e a tm e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. U ni v. H os p. , S t a t e U ni v. o f N .Y ., 7 2 9 F .2 d 1 4 4 , 1 5 6 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ( “I f [ C ]o n g r e s s in te n d e d s e c tio n 5 0 4 to appl y i n thi s m a nne r , i tc hos e s tr a nge l a ngua ge i nde e d. ” ) ; i d. a t157 ( “ T he l egi sl at i ve hi st ory, m oreover, i nd i ca t es that[C ] on gres s nevercont em pl at ed that s e c t i on 504 w oul d appl y t o tr e a tm e ntde c i s i ons of thi s na tur e . ” ) ; J ohns on v. T h o m p s o n , 9 7 1 F .2 d 1 4 8 7 , 1 4 9 3

– 9 4 ( 1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( a g r e e in g w ith U n iv e r s ity H o sp i t al an d st at i n g th at“ [o ] rd i n ari l y, h o w ev er, i f a p erso n w ere n o tso ha ndi c appe d, he ors he w oul d notne e d the m e di c a l tr e a tm e nta nd thus w oul d not

‘ otherw i se qu al i fy ’ for the tre atm ent ”) . C ountE i ghti s apr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s c l a i m a s s e r t i ng tha tunde rC ruz a n v. M o . D ep ’ to f H eal th , 4 9 7 U . S . 2 6 1 , 1 1 0 S . C t . 2 8 4 1 (1 9 9 0 ), th e D u e P ro cess C l ause re qu i re s thatdeci si on s t o rem ov e hydra t i on and n utri t i on fr om an10



### i nc apa c i t a t e d pe r s on m us tbe s uppor t e d by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha ts he w o u ld h a v e m a d e th e s a m e d e c is io n , a n d th a t th e r e w a s n o t e n o u g h e v id e n c e in th is case t o m eetth atst an d ard . T h e p l ai n t i ffs assu red th e d i stri ctco u rtth atth i s w as a pr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s c l a i m . S c hi a vo e x r e l . S c hi ndl e rv. S c hi a vo, ___ F . S upp. 2d ___, 20 05 W L 67 72 24 , at*4 (M . D . F l a. M ar . 25 , 20 05 ) ( di stri ctcourtorder de ny i ng pl a i nt i f

f s ’ s e c ond m ot i on f

orat e m por a ry r e s tr a i ni ng or de r ) ; T r . pt . I a t16, pt . I I a t15 ( M a r . 24, 2005 or a l a r g. be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t ) . T he pl a i nt i f f s ha ve no s u b s ta n tia l c a s e o n th e m e r its a s to th is c la im f o ra t le a s t tw o in d e p e n d e n tly a d e q u a te r e a s o n s . F i rs t , C ruza n d i d n otes t abl i sh thatthe C on st i tut i on re qu i re s app l i ca t i on of a c l e a ra n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d b e f o r e t e rmi n a t i o n o f

c a r e . Th e Su p r e me C our the l d i n C ruz a n onl y tha tas t a t e c oul d, i f i tw i s he d, r e qui r e tha te vi de nc e of the i nc om pe t e nt ’ s w i s he s be pr ove n by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . I d. a t280, 110 S . C t . a t2852 ( “ T he que s t i on, the n, i s w he the rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on forbi ds the es t abl i shm entof thi s proce du ra l re qu i re m entby the S t at e. W e hol d that i tdoe s not . ” ) ; i d. a t284 ( “ I n s um , w e c onc l ude tha taS t a t e m a y appl y ac l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e s t a nda r d i n pr oc e e di ngs w he r e agua r di a n s e e ks t o di s c ont i nue nutr i t i on a nd hy dr a t i on of ape r s on di a gnos e d t o be i n ape r s i s t e ntve ge t a t i ve s ta te .” ) .11



### O f co u rse, h o l d i n g th atst at es m ay p erm i ssi b l y i m p o se a req u i rem en tsays nothi ng aboutw he the rs t a t e s m us ti m pos e i t . O ne ne e d l ook no f ur the rtha n the C ruz a n opi ni on i t s e l f

f ortha ttrui s m . R e f

e rr i ng t o apr e vi ous de c i s i on uphol di ng a st at e’ s fav o red treatm en to f fam i l y rel at i o n sh i p s i n t erm i n at i o n o f care situ at i o n s, the C ou rtexpl ai ned, “ such a hol di ng m ayno tbe turned aroun d i nt o a const i tut i on al r e qui r e m e nttha tas t a t e m us tr e c ogni z e the pr i m a c yof thos e r e l a t i ons hi ps i n a s i tua t i on l i ke thi s . ” I d. a t286, 110 S . C t . a t2855. I n c a s e w e m i s s e d the poi nt , the C ou rtre i t er at ed i tw hen d i sc ussi ng another deci si on : “ H er e a gai n p et i t i on er s w o u ld s e e k to tu rn ad e c is io n w h ic h a llo w e d aS ta te to r e ly o n f a m ily deci si on m aki ng i nt o a const i tut i on al re qu i re m entthatthe S t at e r ec og ni ze such d e c is io n m a k in g . B u t c o n s titu tio n a l la w d o e s n o t w o rk th a t w a y .” I d . S e c o n d , e v e n if

c o n s titu tio n a l la w d id w o rk th e w a y th e p la in tif f s w a n t, contra ryt o the expl i ci tt ea chi ng of the S up re m e C ou rti n the C ruza n o pi ni on i t se l f, th e y w o u ld s till n o t h a v e as u b s ta n tia l c a s e o n th is c la im . P la in tif f s w o u ld n o t, be c a us e F l or i daha s a dopt e d the ve ry r e qui r e m e nttha tthe y s a y the C ons t i tut i on m a nda t e s , ac l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e s t a nda r d, I n r e G ua r di a ns hi p of B r o w n in g , 5 6 8 S o . 2 d 4 , 1 5 ( F la . 1 9 9 0 ) , a n d it w a s ap p lie d b y th e s ta te c o u r ts in th is c a s e , I n r e G u a r d ia n s h ip o f S c h ia v o , 7 8 0 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 9 ( F la . 2 d D C A 2 0 0 1 ) . T he pl a i nt i f

f s a r gue tha tthe s t a t e c our t s s houl d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe c l e a ra nd12



### c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e s ta n d a r d w a s n o t m e t in th is c a s e , b u t aq u a rr e l w ith th e r e s u lt of a procee di ng do es no tst at e acl ai m thatdu e proces s w as no taf forded. S t at ed d if f e r e n tly , p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s d o e s n o t g u a r a n te e ap a r tic u la rr e s u lt. T h e c la im in C o u n t N in e , th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ a c tio n s v io la te th e E ig h th A m e ndm e nt ’ s pr ohi bi t i on a ga i ns tc rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt , i s pl a i nl y w i thout m er i t . T hatconst i tut i on al prov i si on appl i es on l y t o p un i shm ent s i nfl i ct ed af t er conv i ct i on for c ri m es , no tt o l i fe supp ortor m edi ca l tre atm entdeci si on s. S ee B r ow ni ng- F e rr i s I ndus . of V t . , I nc . v. K e l c o D i s pos a l , I nc . , 492 U . S . 257, 262–63, 109 S . C t . 2909, 2913 ( 1989) ( “ T he e i ghth a m e ndm e nti s a ddr e s s e d t o c our t s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s e xe r c i s i ng c r i m i na l j ur i s di c t i on . . . . ” ( quot i ng E x pa r t e W a tki ns , 32 U . S . ( 7 P e t . ) 568, 573–74 ( 1833) ) ; I ngr a ha m v. W r i ght , 525 F . 2d 909, 912–913 ( 5th C i r . 1976) ( e n ba nc ) , a f f’ d, 430 U . S . 651, 97 S . C t . 1401 ( 1977) ( “ N otonl y the c onnot a t i on of

the w or ds ‘ ba i l , ’ a nd ‘ f i ne , ’ butthe l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory c onc e rni ng e na c tm e ntof

the bi l l of

r i ght s s uppor t s a n a r gum e nttha tthe E i ghth A m e ndm e nt w as i nt ended t o b e app l i ed on l y t o p un i shm enti nv ok ed as a s anct i on for c ri m i nal cond uct . ” ( footno t e om i tt ed)) . C ou ntT en c la im s th a t th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e is v io la te d w h e n a n yp e r s o n is d e p r iv e d o f n u tr itio n a n d h y d r a tio n a g a in s t h e rw is h e s . T o s uppor tthi s pr opos i t i on, pl a i nt i f f s a ga i n r e l y on C ruz a n, the na rr ow hol di ng of13



### w h ic h w e h a v e a lr e a d y d is c u s s e d a t le n g th . T o th e e x te n t th e y c la im ar ig h t to procedural du e proces s— and the supp l em ent al m ot i on i n sup po rtof thi s c ou ntthat they f i l ed i n the di stri ctcourti nd i ca t es thati s thei r s peci fi c c l ai m — i thas bee n a f f or de d i n abunda nc e . A s F l or i da ’ s S e c ond D i s tr i c tC our tof A ppe a l obs e rve d,

“ N oton l y has M rs . S chi avo’ s c as e bee n g i ven d ue process , bu tfe w , i f a ny, si m i l ar ca se s have e ver been af forded thi s hei gh t ened l evelof proces s. ” I n re Gu a r d i a n s h i p o f

S c h i a v o , ___S o . 2 d ___ , 2 0 0 5 WL 6 0 0 3 7 7 , a t* 3 ( F l a . 2 d DC A M ar . 16 , 20 05 ); i d. at*5 n. 1 (l i st i ng tw enty- on e di ff er entproceedi ng s i n the ca se ). T o the e xt e ntpl a i nt i f

f s c l a i m as ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s r i ght , the r e i s no autho ri ty t o sup po rtthei r posi t i on . W e a re m i nd ful thatthe S up re m e C ou rthas de s c r i be d i t s e l f

a s ha vi ng “ a l w a y s be e n r e l uc t a ntt o e xpa nd the c onc e ptof s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s b e c a u s e g u id e p o s ts f o rr e s p o n s ib le d e c is io n m a k in g in th is u n ch art ered area are scarce an d o p en -en d ed . ” C o l l i n s v . C i ty o f H ark er H ei g h t s, T e xa s , 503 U . S . 115, 125, 112 S . C t . 1061, 1069 ( 1992) . A s ar e s ul t , “ [ t ] he do ctri ne of j ud i ci al se l f- re stra i ntre qu i re s us t o exerci se the utm ostca re w henever w e a r e a s k e d to b r e a k n e w g r o u n d in th is f ie ld .” I d . T h e C o u r t h a s s p e c if ic a lly hel d thatthe subst ant i ve du e proces s c om po nentof the D ue P roce ss C l ause do es n o treq u i re a st at e t o p ro t ecti t s ci t i zen s ag ai n sti n j u ry b y n o n -st at e act o rs. D e Sh a n e y v . W i n n e b a g o Co u n ty D e p ’ to f So c i a l Se rv . , 4 8 9 U . S. 1 8 9 , 1 9 5 , 1 0 9 S.Makingdecisions and drafting and revising opinions to explain those dec isions under the 3 time pressure s that these ty pe of emerg ency

matters impose is a difficult process a nd one in which error ca n occur . In the process of researching the new issues and writing this opinion, we discovere d th atth e f i n alv er s i o n o f th e m aj o ri ty o p i n i o nwe i s s u edi nth e p ri o r app ea lthre e n i ght s ago inadver tently failed to attribute two sentenc es that we used from a prior Florida state appellatecourt o p inio n . Co mp are Sch ia

v o I , 2 0 0 5 WL 6 4 8 8 9 7 , at * 5 , w it h In re Gu ardia

n s h ip o f Sch ia

v o , 2 0 0 5 WL 6 0 0 3 7 7 , at* 4 . W e are th ank fu l th at we di s co v er edth ato m i s s i o ni nti m e t o p ro p erly ac kn o wl ed ge the s ource of the words in this opi nion. Our for mer opinion will be promptly correcte d to add the appropriate citation. As we said three nights ag o: A petition for rehearing or sug g estion for rehearing en banc 4 is not, of c ours e , re quire d be fo re a petition fo r certiorari may be fi le d in th eUnite d St ate s Su pre me Court. I f, however, a

peti t i o n fo r re h eari ngor rehearing en banc is to be f iled, it mustbe filed by 8:00 a.m. ET, March 26, 2005. See F ed.R.App.P. 35(c) & F ed.R.App.P. 40(a) (1). 14 

### C t. 9 9 8 , 1 0 0 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( “[ N ]o th in g in th e la n g u a g e o f th e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e its e lf req u i res th e S t at e t o p ro t ectth e l i fe, l i b erty, an d p ro p erty o f i t s ci t i zen s ag ai n st i nv as i on by pri vat e a ct ors. ”) ; ac cord L ov i ns v. L ee , 53 F . 3d 12 08 , 12 09 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( n o g e n e r a l s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s r ig h t to b e p r o te c te d a g a in s t c r im in a ls e ve n w he n the y w e r e w r ongf ul l y r e l e a s e d) . A s w e ha ve a l r e a dy e xpl a i ne d, the d efen d an t s are n o tst at e act o rs fo r p resen tp u rp o ses. 3 

### T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e te m p o r a ry r e s tr a in in g o r d e ris AF F I R ME D. 415



### W I L S O N , C i r c ui tJ udge , c onc urr i ng: I c o n c u rin th e r e s u lt f

o rth e r e a s o n th a t th e p la in tif f s h a v e b e e n u n ab le to c o m e f o rw a r d in th e irs e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w ith a n y n e w c la im s p a lp ab ly al l egi ng the deni al of a r i gh tse cure d b y the C on st i tut i on or l aw s of the U ni t ed S ta te s .Pag e 16 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

16 T HERE S A M ARI E S CHI NDL E R S CHI AVO, I n c a p a c i t a t e d e x r e l . , ROBER T S C H IN D L E R a n d M A R Y S C H IN D L E R , h er P a re n ts a n d N ex t F rien d s, P l a i n tiffs , vs. M I C H A E L SC H I A V O , as G uardi an o f t he P ers on o f

Th ere s a M ari e Schi ndl er S c h i a v o , I n c a p a c i t a t e d , J U D G E G E OR G E W. G R E E R a n d T HE HO S P I C E OF

T H E F L O R ID A S U N C O A S T , IN C ., D efe n d a n ts.

Ca s e No . 8 : 0 5 - CV- 5 3 0 - T - 2 7 T BM

U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C OU R T F OR T HE M I D D L E D I S T R I C T OF F L OR I D A , T A M P A D I V I S I ON

2005 U . S. D is t . LE XI S 4609

M arch 25 , 200 5, D eci ded

C O U N SE L : [ *1] ForT h er es a M ar i e Sc h i n dl erSc h i av o, i ncap aci t at ed ex rel , R o b ertSchindl er and M ary S c h ind le r, h e r p a re n ts a n d ne x t f rie n d s, P la intiff: D a v id G . Gi bb s , I I I , Gi bb s L a w F i r m, S e mi n ol e , F L; Geo r g e R. T ragos, Law O f

f i ce o f G e o rge E . T ragos, C l earwat er, FL; Ro bertA. D es t r o, Co l umbu s S choo l of Law, W a s h i n g t on , DC.

For M i ch ae l Sc h i av o, a s g u ar di an of th e per s on of T h er es a M ar i e Sc hi nd l er Sc h i av o, i n ca pac i t at ed, D e fen d a n t: G e o rg e J . F e lo s, F e lo s & F e lo s, P .A ., D u n e di n , F L; I r i s Ben n e t t , J e n n e r & B l oc k L LC ,Pag e 17 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

17 W a sh ing to n , D C ; R a n d a ll C . M a rs h a ll, A m e ric a n C iv il Li ber t i es U n i on Fou n dat i on of Fl ori d a, I n c. , M i ami , FL; R e b e c c a H . S te e le , A C L U F o u n d a tio n o f F lo rid a , In c ., We s tC e n t r a l F l o r i d a O f f i c e , Ta m p a , F L ; R o b e r tM. Por t ma n , J e n n e r & B l oc k L LC , W a s h i n g t on , DC; T h om a s J . Pe r r e l l i , J e n n e r & B l oc k , W a s h i n g t on , DC.

Fo r Judge G e o rge W . G reer, D ef end ant : B arryA . C o hen, Cohe n , J ay s on & Fos t er , P. A. , T ampa , FL.

F o r T h e H o sp ic e o f th e F lo rid a S u n c o a st, In c ., D ef end ant : G ai l G o lm an H o l t zm an, C o nst angy, B roo ks & S m ith, L L C , T a m p a , F L ; J o h n W . C a m p b e ll, C o n s t a n g y , Br o o k s & S m i t h , L LC , Ta m p a , F L ; R o b i n G. M i du l l a, Robi n G r ei we M i du l l a, P. A. , T ampa , FL.

F o r L ib e rty C o u n se l, In c ., A m ic u s: [ *2] E r i k W. St an l ey , Li ber t y Coun s el , Lon g wood, FL.

For U n i t ed St at es , I n t er es t ed P ar t y : Pau l I . Per ez , U . S. At t or n ey ' s O f

f i ce , M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Fl or i da, O r l an do, FL; W ar r en A . Zi mm er man, U . S. At t orn ey ' s O f f i ce, M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof

Fl or i da, T ampa , FL.

F o r M o r t o n Pl a n tHo s p i t al A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , Vi c t o r E. G a m b o n e , M .D ., M o rto n P la n t M e a se P rim a ry C a re , In c ., St a n t on P. T r i po di s , M . D . , I n t e r e s t e d Pa r t i e s : James A d d i son M art i n, Jr. , M acf arl ane F ergus o n & M cM ul l en, C l earwat er , FL; J ef f r eyW . G i bs on , M ac Fa r l ane Fe r g u s on & M cM u l l en , Cl ea r wa t er , FL.

For G or don W ay n e W att s , I n t er es t ed Par t y : G or don W ay n e W att s , La k el an d, FL.

Fo r St at e of

Fl or i da, D epa r t men tof Chi l dr en a nd Fa m i l ie s, Int erest ed P arty : Jenni f er St aci e Lima- Sm i t h, Fl or i da D epa r t men tof

Chi l dr en & Fa mi l i es , T ampa , FL.

J U D G E S: JAM E S D . W H I T T E M O R E , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJu dge.

O P IN IO N B Y : J AM ES D. W H I T T EM O RE

O P IN IO N : O R D ER BE FORE T HE CO URT i s P l ainti f f s' (F i rst A me n de d) M ot i on f

orT e mp or a r y Re s t r a i n i n g Order (D kt . 34 ) n 1 a nd M em o randum i n Sup p o rt(D kt . 39 ). n2 A f t er no t i ce t o the p art i es, the C o urtco nd uct ed a heari ng o n M arch 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 . U p o n caref u l co nsi d erat i o n, Pl a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n ( Dk t . 3 4 ) i s DE NI ED .

n1 A s t o D ef

end ant Jud ge G eo rge W . G reer,Pag e 18 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

18 P l ai nt i f f s ' coun s el conf

i r med atora l argum entthat P la intiff s w e re no t se e k ing i n

j u n c tive re lief a s to J u d g e G re e r in his o ff

ic ia l ca p a c ity. [ *3]

n 2 P l a i n t i f

f s a c k n o w l e d g e th a tth i s C o u r t 's d eci si o n on t he E m ergency M o t i o n T em p o rary R estrai ni ng O rder whi ch was af f i rme d by the E l eve nth Ci r cui t , r es ol ved a l l i s s ues wi t h r esp ect t o C o unt s O ne t hrough F i ve. A cc o rd i ngl y , the o nl y i ss ue b ef

o re the C o urti s t he p rop ri et y of t he i njunct i ve rel i ef

request ed i n C o unt s Six through T en. Appli cable Standar ds A t em p o rary re st raining o rd er p ro t ec t s aga i nst irre p a ra b le ha rm a n d p re se rv e s the sta tus q u o un til a m e a n ing ful d e c isio n o n the m e rits c a n b e m a d e . Canal Aut h. of Stat e of Fl or i da v . Cal l away, 48 9 F . 2d 567, 572 ( 5 th C i r. 19 7 4

). T hi s Co ur tha s pre vi ous l y det er mi ned and r eaf f i r ms thatP l ai nt i f

f s ha ve es t abl i s hed thatan i r r epa r abl e h ar m wi l l be s u f f er ed u n l es s t h e i n

j u n ct i on i ss u e s, the t hreat ened i njuryoutwei ghs any d am age t he p rop o sed i njunct i o n co ul d cause t h e o p p o si ng pa rty and t h ata n i n

j u n ct i on w ou l d n otbe a dv er s e t o the i n t er es t s of t he publ i c. O n c e a g a in th e c ritica l i ssu e is wh e the r P la intiff s h av e es t abl i s h ed a s u bs t an t i al l i k el i h o od of s u cc es s on t h e mer i t s on a n y on e of Coun t s Si x th r o ugh T en. n3 A su b sta n tial [ *4] lik e li h o o d o f suc c e ss o n the m e rits re q u ire s a sh o w in g o f o n ly like ly or probabl e, r atherthan certa in su c c e ss. Ho m e O il C o mp a ny , In c . v. S a m 's E a st, I nc. , 1 9 9 F . Supp. 2d 1236, 1249 ( M. D . Al a. 2002) (emp h a sis in o rig in a l). W h er e, as h er e, th e "ba l an ce of t he eq uiti es wei ghs heavi l y i n f avo r of grant i ng the [ i nj un ct i on] " t he P l ai nt i f f s ne ed onl y s ho w a "s ubs t ant i al ca s e on th e mer i t s . " G ar ci a-M i rv . Mee s e, 781 F. 2d 1 4 5 0 , 1 4 5 3 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). O n c ar ef

u l c on s i der at i on of ea ch co u n t , th e Cour tc on cl u des th atPl ai n t i f f s h av e n ot sho w n a sub st an t i al ca se o n the m erit s.

n 3 Th e Ac tdo e s n ota dd r e s s th e tr a di t i onal re q u ire m e n ts fo r te m p o ra r y inj u n c tive re lief. A ccor di ng l y , thes e s t andar ds contr ol wh ether t empor ar y i nj u n ct i v e re l i ef i s w ar r an t ed, not wi t hs t andi ng Co ng r es s ' s i nt entthatthe f ede r al cour t s det er mi ne de no vo the m erit s o f T h ere sa S c hiav o ' s claim ed co nsti tuti o na l d ep rivati o ns. S ch i avo v. Sc hi avo, N o . 05 - 1 1 5 5 6 at5 (1 1 t h C i r. M arch 23 , 20 0 5 ).

D is cu s s i on [ *5]Pag e 19 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

19 P ur s uan tt o P ub. L . N o. 109 - 3 t hi s cour tha s j u ri s di ct i on "t o h ea r , de t er mi n e an d r en derj u dg men t " on t he cla im s b ro ug ht b y P l ainti f f s o n b eh alf

o f T he resa S ch i av o " f

o r the all eg ed vio l ati o n o f an y rig ht o f

T he resa M ari e Sc hi avo unde r the C o nst i tut i o n or l aw s o f the U ni t ed St at es r el at ed t o th e wi t h h ol di n g orw i t h dr aw al of f oo d, f l ui ds or medi cal tr eatmentneces s ar y t o s us t ai n h er l i f e. " T his C o ur ti s t o det er mi ne de no vo P l ainti f f s' ass ert ed cl ai m s as s etf o rth i n C o unt s Six through T en. T h e co urtm ustde t erm i ne whet her P l ai nt i f f s have s h own a s u bs t an t i al c as e on th e mer i t s o f an y c l ai m f

or p u rp o se s o f t e m p o ra ry in ju n c tive re lie f. A b se n t a s h owi ng o f

a de pr i v at i on of

a c on s t i tu t i on al r i g h tor vi ol at i on o f

a f eder al l aw, the s i ne qua non o f th i s C o u r t 's j u r i s di ct i on u n derPub. L. N o. 109- 3, Pl ai n t i f f s c an n ot e sta b lish a sub sta n tial like liho o d o f su c c e ss o n the m e rits o r ev en a sub st an t i al ca se o n the m erit s.

- Count SixT he Am er i cans w ith D is ab iliti es Act In C o untSix, P l ai nt i f f s al l ege t hatthe f

ai l ure and refusal o f D efen d an tM i ch ae l S ch i av o t o f urn i sh T he resa S c h ia v o w ith n e c e ssa ry a n d a p p ro p ria te the ra p y, re h a b ili ta tio n se rv ic e s a n d e sse n tial [ *6] medi cal ser vi ces and hi s d em and thats he b e d e p riv e d of f o o d and w a te r v io la te he r rig h ts u n d e r th e A m e ric a n s w ith D isa b ili ties A c t (" A D A " ), 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 2 101 et . s eq. (D kt . 36 , P 8 3 ). In pert i nentp a rt, the A D A pro vi d es that"no qu al i f i ed i n di v i du al w i t h a di s abi l i t y shal l , by r ea s on of s u ch di s abi l i t y , be excl u ded f r om pa r t i ci pat i on i n orbe deni ed t he benef

i t s of the s er vi ces , progr ams, or act i vi t i es o f a pub l i c ent i t y , or b e subject t o dis cri m i nat i o n by any s u ch e n t i t y . " 42 U. S. C. § 12132. T o state a c l ai m under T itl e II o f th e A D A , a p la intiff m u st a lleg e : (1 ) th a t she is a "qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual wi t h a di s ab i l i t y ; " (2) thats he was

" e x c lud e d fro m p a rtic ip a tio n in o r . . . d e n ie d th e b e n e fit s o f th e ser vi ces, pro gram s, or act i vi t i es of a pub l i c ent i ty" or oth erwi s e "di scr i mi n at ed [ ag ai n s t ] by s u ch e n t i t y ; " ( 3) "by re as on of

s u ch di s abi l i t y . " Shot z v . Cat es , 256 F. 3d 1 0 7 7, 1 0 7 9 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). As s u mi n g a rgue ndo that T heresa Schi avo i s a " q ual i f i ed i nd i vi d ual wi t h a di s abi l i t y , " P l ai nt i f

f s mus ts how thatD ef

endan t s M i cha el Schi avo and H ospi ce ar e "p ubl i c e nti t i es" that d i scr i m i nat ed a g a insther "b y reas o n [ *7] of " her d isa b ili ty. C ont r ar y t o P l ai nt i f

f s ' ar gu ment , M i cha el Schi avo, as cou r ta ppoi n t ed g u ar di an f or T her es a Sc h i av o, w as n ot act i ng unde r col o r of

s t at e l aw . S ee Harv ey v. Harv ey, 9 4 9 F .2 d1 1 2 7, 1 1 3 2 -3 3 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); K i r t l ey v. R a in e y , 3 2 6 F .3 d1 0 8 8 , 1 0 9 2 -9 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). M o re o ver, M i chael Sc hi avo canno tbe a "p ub l i c ent i t y" und er the A D A by vi rtue o f th e p l ai n l anguage o f the st at utory d ef

i ni t i o n, whi ch d ef

i nes "p ub l i c ent i t y " as " anyPag e 20 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

20 S ta te o r lo c a l go v e rn m e n t" o r " a n y d e p a rtm e n t, a g e n c y, sp e c ia l p u rp o se d istric t, o r o the r i n s tr u m e n ta lity o f a St at e o r S t at es orl oca l g ov ern men t . " 42 U. S. C. § 12131. A ccor di ng l y , P l ai nt i f f s ca nn o ts how a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood of s ucc es s on t he meri t s aga i ns tM i ch ael Sc h i a v o u n de r th e ADA. A s to D e fen d a n t H o sp ic e , P la intiff s c o n te n d tha t i t i s a " p u b li c e n tity" un d e r th e A D A b e c a u se ita c c e p ts f ed eral f und i ng. P l ai nt i f

f s o f f er no aut ho ri t y , how e ver, fo r th e ir c o n te n tio n . A g a in, the ter m " p u b lic e n tity" m e a n s " . . . an y sta te o r lo c a l go v e rn m e n t. " S im p ly p u t, P la intiff s h a v e no t sho w n tha t th e H o sp ic e is a " p u b lic ent i t y " unde r the A D A , an e sse nt i al el em entof a T i t l e II c la im . [ *8] P l ainti f f s co nten d i n the a l t ern ati ve tha tH o sp i ce i s a

" p ub l i c acco m m o d at i o n" unde r the A D A . H o wever, the d e finit io n " p u b lic a c c o m m o d a tio n " in the sta tute , 42 U . S . C . § 12181 ( 7), does noti ncl ude a f aci l i t y s uch as H os pi ce . M or eov er , e v en i f i ti s a s s u med ar

guendo that H o sp ic e falls w ithin the d e fi n it io n o f " p u b lic acc om mo dat i on, " P l ai nt i f f s ca nn ot s how a subst ant i al c a s e o n th e m e r i t s a g a i n s tHo s p i c e u n d e r th e A DA becau s e theyha ve no t sh own thatan y al l ege d di s cr i mi n at i on a g ai n s tT h er es a Sc h i av o w as by r ea s on of a d i sabil i t y . In o rder t o prevail unde r T i t l e II I of the AD A, a pl ai n t i f

f g en er al l y h as t h e bu r den of pr ov i ng: (1) t hats he i s an i ndi vi dual wi t h a d i s abi l i t y ; ( 2) that def en dan ti s a pl ac e of

pu bl i c acco m m odat i on ; a n d ( 3) t hatde f end antde ni ed her f

ul l a n d eq ual enjoyme ntof t he g oods , s er v i ce s , f

ac i l i t i es orpr i v i l eg es of f er ed by d e fen d a n t (4 ) o n the b a sis o f he r d isa b ility. Lars en v. C a r n i v a lC o r

p . , I n c . , 2 4 2 F . S u

pp . 2 d1 3 3 3 , 1 3 4 2 (

S . D. F la . 2 0 0 3

). P l ai nt i f f s ha ve nots hown t hatH ospi ce ' s comp l i anc e wi t h th e s ta te judge' s o rder t o wi t hho l d nutri t i o n and h y d r a tio n c o n stitute d d isc rim ina tio n " o n the b a sis o f a d i sabil i t y . [ *9] " For e xampl e, i ti s un di s put ed t hat H o sp ic e , w h e n d ir e c te d b y the sta te c o u rt, c o o p e ra te d in n oton l y th e r em o v al of T h er es a Sc h i av o' s f

ee di n g tu be butal s o i t s r ei nser t i on. n4 H ospi ce' s conduc tther ef ore, m u s tn e c e s s a r i l y h a v e b e e n m o t i v a t e d b y th e C o u r t 's o rd er, no tan y discrim i n a to ry anim us tow ard T he resa Sc h i av o. Fora l l of

th es e r ea s on s , Pl ai n t i f f s ca n n ot e sta b lish a sub sta n tial like liho o d o f su c c e ss o n the m e rits o r ev en a sub st an t i al ca se o n the m erit s.

n 4 Pl ai n t i f

f s r el i ance on t h e r eg u l at i on a t28 C. F. R. § 35. 130 i s mi spl aced. T h atpr ov i s i on m erel y "c l ari f

i es thatnei t her the A D A nor t he regul at i o n al t ers cu rr e ntFed eral l aw ensuri ng the r i gh t s of i ncomp et enti ndi vi dual s wi t h di s abi l i t i es to re c e ive fo o d , w a te r, a n d m e d ic a l tre a tm e n t." D e p t. O f Ju stice , S e c tio n -b y-S e c tio n A n a lysis, 56 FR 35694 (Jul y 26 , 19 9 1 ).Pag e 21 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

21 - Count Se ve nThe Re habilitati on Act of 1973 I n Coun tSe v en, Pl ai n t i f f s a l l eg e t h atH os pi ce of Flori d a Sun C o ast, Inc. vi o l at ed T heresa Schi avo ' s ri ght t o [ *10] r eh abi l i t at i on u n derth e Reh abi l i t at i on Actof 1 9 7 3 , § 5 0 4 , as am ende d, 29 U. S. C. § 794. ( Dk t . 36 , PP 8 5 - 8 7 ). T he R ehab i l i t at i o n A ct o f 1 9 7 3 p rovides tha t "no o the rw ise q u a lif

ie d ind ivid u a l with a d isa b ili ty . . . sha ll, s o le ly by re a so n o

f h is o r h e r d isa b ili ty . . . be s ubj ect ed t o dis cri m i nat i o n unde r any pro gram or act i vity recei vi ng Fe der al fi n an ci al a s s i s t an ce . . . . " 29 U. S. C. § 794 ( a) (emp h a sis a d d e d

). T he el em ent s o f

a cl ai m unde r the R eha bi l i t at i on Act ar e: "(1) that[ s he] i s a ' han di capped i nd i vid ua l ' und e r the A ct, (2 ) tha t[she] is ' o t he rw i se qual i f i ed' f or the [ benef

i t ] s ough t , ( 3) t ha t[ s he] was [dis cri m i nat ed agai nst ] sol el y b y reason o f [her] h an di ca p, a n d ( 4) th atth e pr og r am o r act i v i t y i n qu es t i on r ec ei v es f

ede r al f i nanc i al a s s i s t an ce . " G r z an v. Ch arter Ho sp . o f N o rth w est In d i a n a , 1 0 4 F .3d 1 1 6 , 1 1 9 (7 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e fi rstan d f

o urth elem en t s are m et as T he resa Schi avo i s a h andi capped i ndi vi dual a nd H ospi ce rec eive s f ed era l f un d s. T he second el em entrequi res that T heresa Schi avo b e " o t herwi se qual i f

i ed , " whi ch m eans th a t a bse nther d is ab i l i t y, s he wo ul d qua l i f

y f o r [ *11] t h e t r ea t men ts he is b e ing d e n ie d . I

d. at120. T h e R e h a b ili ta tio n A c t i s i n t en ded t o e n s u r e t h ath an di ca pp ed i n di v i du al s a r e n ot deni ed acc es s t o progr ams provi ded t o non- han di capped p e rs o n s. I

d. at121. B ecause o f th is i nt end ed s t at ut o ry p u rp o se , co u rts h o ld tha t " ' the o the r w is e q u a lif ie d c rite ria

. . . can not be meani ng f ul l y appl i ed t o a m ed i cal t r ea t men tde ci s i on . ' " I

d. ( qu ot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Uni v. Hos p. of S t a t e Uni v. of

New York atSt ony Br ook, 729 F .2 d1 4 4 , 1 5 6 (2 dC ir. 1 9 8 4 )) . T h er es a Sc hi avo is n ot

" o t herwi se qual i f

i ed " be cau se she wo ul d not have any n ee d f or a fee di n g tu be t o de l i v ern u t r i t i on a n d h y dr at i on b utf o r herm ed i cal co nd i t i o n. P la intiff s a lso c a n n o t es ta b lish th e third e le m e n t. H os pi ce i s n otw i t h h ol di n g n u t r i t i on a n d h y dr at i on "sol el y by r eas on of " T her es a Sch i avo' s m ed i cal co nd i t i o n, but rather bec ause i ti s co m p l y i ng wi t h a co urt o rder and the i nstruct i o ns o f her guar d i an. Fi n al l y , Pl ai n t i f

f s ' a t t emptt o b r i n g a n a ct i on on T h er es a Sc h i av o' s be h al f u n dert he R eha bi l i t at i on Actf or wi t hho l d i ng nutri t i o n and hy d rat i o n fai l s as the Reh abi l i t at i on Actdoe s n otma n dat e t h e pr ov i s i on of se rv ic e s. S ee O l m s t ead v. L. C. ex r el . Zi m r i ng, 527 U. S. 581, 603 n. 14, 144 L. E d . 2d 540 ( 1999) [ *12] ( "W e doPag e 22 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

22 no ti n thi s o p i ni o n ho l d thatthe A D A i m p o ses on t he St at es a s t andar d of

ca r e f or w hat ev ermedi cal s er vi ces t hey re nd er, or t hatthe A D A r equi r es St at es t o provi de a cert ai n l evel of b enef

i t s t o i nd i vi d ual s wi t h dis ab i l i t i es. " ). Pl ai n t i f f s a cc o rdi n g l y h av e n ote s t abl i s h ed a subst ant i al l i kel i ho o d of success on t h e m e rit s o r a s u bs t an t i al c as e on th e mer i t s u n derth e Reh abi l i t at i on Actof 1973. -C o u n t E ig h tV i o la ti o n o

f F o u rtee n th A m en dm en t D u e P ro ce ss Ri ght to Subs tituted Judgm en t D ec is i on Bas ed on a Clea r a n dC o n vin cin g E vid en ce S ta n d a rd C o u n t E i g h t a l l e g e s th a t T h e r e s a S c h i a v o 's Fourt een t h Amendm entdue pr oces s r i gh t s wer e v i ol at ed i n th atth e s t at e cou r t ' s or derof Fe br u ary 11, 2000, aut ho ri zi ng th e dis co nt i nuat i o n of hy d rat i o n and nut ri t i o n, "w as not s u p p o rted by cl ear and co nvi nci ng e v id e n c e tha t T e rr i w o u ld h a v e m a d e the sa m e d e c is io n ." ( D kt . 36, P 90). P l ai nt i f f s cont end thatthe st at e tr i al judge m ad e a num b er o f evi d ent i ary errors in c o n cl ud i ng t hatT heresa' s i nt ent i o ns were est ab l i shed b y cl ear and convi nci ng ev i dence . P l ai nt i f f s ' coun s el ac kn owl edged d urin g o ral arg um en ttha tC o un tE i gh tp rese nts a procedur al due pr oces s cl ai m underthe [ * 1 3] F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. P l ai nt i f f s co nt end , rel y i ng on C ru za n v. M is so u ri D e p 'to f He a lth , 4 9 7 U.S . 2 6 1 , 1 1 1 L . E d . 2 d2 2 4 (1 9 9 0 ), tha t " the D u e P ro c e ss C la u se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t r equi r es th atde ci s i on s t o r emov e h y dr at i on an d n u t r i t i on f

r om a n i n ca pac i t at ed per s on mu s tbe sup p o rt ed by cl ear and co nvi nci ng evi d ence t hatthe i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n w o u l d h a v e m a d e th e s a me d eci si o n. " (D kt . 36 , p 8 9 ) ( emp h a sis a d d e d

). C o n tra ry to P l ai nt i f f s' co nt ent i o n, the Sup rem e C o urti n Cr uz an d id n o t m a nd at e ap p l i cat i o n of t he hei ght ened cl ear and co n vi nci ng evi d ence st and ard. T he q uest i o n be f o re the Cr u z an co urtwas whet her the st at e' s ap p l i cat i o n of t he hei g h t en ed ev i den t i ary s t an dar d ov erbu r den ed t he p a tie n t's rig h t t o re fus e m e d ic a l tre a tm e n t, n o t wh e the r it adequat el y prot ect ed t he pat i ent ' s r i gh tt o l i f e. G i ven t he ho l d i ng i n Cr uz an, Pl ai n t i f f s c an n ot c o m p l a i n o f

a d e p r i v a t i o n o f

T h e r e s a S c h i a v o 's F o ur t een t h Amendm entprocedur al due pr oces s r i gh t s. T he st at e co urtjudge ap p l ie d the hei ght ened cl ear and convi nci ng ev i dence s t andar d i n det er m i ni ng he r inte n tio n s, a s p e rm itt e d b y Cr uz an an d i n a ccor dance wi t h F la . S ta t. § 765. 401( 3) . n 5 T o [ *14] t he ext ent Pl ai n t i f f s c ompl ai n th atth e qu an tu m of e v i d enc e di d n ot r i s e t o t he level of

cl earan d convi nci ng , thes e c l ai med evi dent i ar y er r ors ar e a mat t erof s t at e l aw, notf

eder al cons t i tut i onal l aw.

n 5 F la . S ta t. § 7 6 5 .4 0 1 (3 ) p ro v id e s, inPag e 23 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

23 p e rtine n t p a rt:

B e f o r e e x e r c ising t h e inc a p a c ita te d p a tien t' s rig h ts to se le c t o r d e c lin e he a lthc a re , . . . a pr ox y ' s de ci si on t o w i t h h ol d or w i t h d r aw l i f e - p rolongi n g pr oce du r es mu s tbe s u p p o r t ed by cl ea r an d convi nci ng ev i dence that t he d eci si o n w o ul d have b een t he one the pat i entwoul d have c hos en h a d the p a tien t b e e n c o m p e te n t.

- C oun t NineVi o la ti o n o

f Ei g h th Am e n dm e n t

Pr o h ib iti on Agains t Cr ue l and Unus ual

Punis hm en t C ountN i ne of

the P l ai nt i f

f s ' Second Am ended C o m p la int a lleg e s tha t D e fen d a n ts vi o la te d the E igh th A me n dm e n t ' s pr oh i bi t i on a g a i n s tc r u e l a n d u n u s u al p uni shment. P l ai nt i f

f s' ass ertthat"J ud g e G reer and M i chael Sc hi avo , as st at e act o rs , have vi o a ted [s i c] T erri Sc hi av o ' s E i ght h A m end m entri ght s b y de m o nstrat i ng a [ *15] del i bera t e i ndi f

f er enc e t o a kno w [ s i c] , s ubs t ant i al ri sk o f s eri o us harm . . . . " (D kt . 36 , P 10 1 ). T h e Ei g h t h Ame n dm e n t , a s a pp l i e d t o th e s t at es t hrough t he Fo urt eent h A m end m e n t , pro hi b i t s t he i nf l i ct i o n of cruel and unus ual punis hm en t. Ha m m v. D e ka lb C ty ., 7 7 4 F .2 d1 5 6 7, 1 5 7 1 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). T he E i g h th Am end m ent ' s p rohibi t i o n agai nstcruel and un usua l p un is h m en to nly ap p l i es " sub seq ue nt t o an d as a c o n se q u e n c e o f a p e r s o n ' s la w ful c o n v ic tio n o f a c rim e ." I d. at1572. T he E i gh t h A m en d m en ti s i na p p l i ca b l e to T he resa Schi avo b ec au s e the s t at e h as not"ob t ai ned a f ormal adj u di ca t i on of

g u i l t . " I d. at1572 (

qu ot i ng I

n g ra h am v. W r ight , 430 U. S. 651, 671- 72, n. 4 0 , 5 1 L. Ed. 2d 711 (1 9 7 7 )) . D espit e P l ai nt i f

f s' co nt ent i o ns, T heresa Schi avo i s not bei ng "d et ai ned" by t he s t at e at t he H ospi ce. Fi nal l y , as the cour tha s pre vi ous l y n o t ed, M i cha el S c h ia v o a n d J u d g e G re e r a re no t state a c to rs . See Ki r t l ey, 326 F. 3d at1092- 96; Har ve y, 949 F. 2d at133-34; Tor r es v . Fi rs tStat e Bank of Si er r a Ct

y. , 588 F. 2d 1322, 1 3 2 6 -2 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). F o r th e se re a so n s, P la intiff s c a n n o t [ *16] estab l is h a su b st an t i al l i ke l i ho o d o f succ ess o n the m e rits o r a su b sta n tial c a se o n t h e m e rits o n the ir Ei g h t h Ame n dm e n tc l a i m.

- CountTenV i o la ti o n o

f Fo urteen th A m en dm en t R i g ht to L i fe In Co untT en, P l ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat"d ep riv ing P l ainti ff o f nutri t i o n a nd hyd rati o n c o ntrary t o he r wish t o l ive is a vi o l at i o n of her Fo urt eent h A m end m entri ghtPag e 24 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

24 to li fe." (D k t. 3 6 , P 1 0 4 ) . A s in C o u n t E igh t, P la intiff s r el y on the Fourt een th Amendm ent to t he U ni t ed St at es C o nst i tut i o n whi ch p rovides thatno st at e shal l "d ep ri ve any p ers o n of l i f

e, l i b e rty o r prop erty , wi t ho utdue proces s of

l aw. " D ur i ng ora l ar gu ment , P l ai nt i f f s ' coun s el co nfi rm ed tha tP l ainti f f s a ss ert a sub st an t i ve d ue p ro ce ss cl ai m i n Coun tT en . T h e i s s u e pr es en t ed i n Coun tT en f or p urpo ses o f t em p o raryi njunct i ve rel i ef , i s whether , co n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l g r a n t i n Pu b . L . N o. 109- 3, Pl ai n t i f

f s h av e es t abl i s h ed a s u bs t an t i al l i k el i h ood o f s uccess o n the m eri t s o f thei r cont ent i o n.

" A f i nd i ng thata ri ghtm eri t s subst a n ti ve d ue proces s prot ect i on means thatthe r i gh ti s prot ect ed agai nstcert ai n gove rnme ntact i o ns regardl ess of t he fair n e ss o f th e p ro c e d u re s u se d to im p le m e n t th e m ." M cKi n n e

y v . Pa t e , 2 0 F. 3 d1 5 5 0 , 1 5 5 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4) [ *17] ( ci t i ng Col l i ns v . Ci t

y of Har ke rHei

ghts , 503 U. S. 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 L . E d . 2 d2 6 1 (1 9 9 2 )) ( i nt ernalquotat i ons and ci t a t i o ns om i t t ed) ; s ee al s o Zi nerm on v . Bur ch, 494 U. S. 1 1 3 , 1 25, 108 L. Ed. 2d 100 ( 1990) (" t he D ue P ro ce ss C la u se c o n ta ins a su b sta n tive c o m p o n e n t tha t b a rs c e rta in arbitrary , wrongf

ul gove rnme ntact i o ns ' regardl ess of t he f ai rnes s o f

the p roce d ures us ed t o i m p l em entthem ' " ). A s a n init i al m att er, a sub st an t i ve d ue p ro ce ss v io la tio n re q u ire s sta te a c tio n . D eShane y v. Wi nnebago Ct y. D SS, 489 U. S. 189, 195 ( 1989) ("no t hi ng in the l anguage o f

the D ue P ro cess C l ause i t sel f requi res the sta te to p ro te c t th e li fe, lib e rty, a n d p ro p e rty o f i ts

ci t i ze n s a g ai n s ti n v as i on by pr i v at e ac t or s ") . Forthe sa m e re a so n s tha t P la intiff s c o u ld no t es ta b lish sta te ac t i on i n th ei r oth er cl ai ms , Pl ai n t i f f s h av e n ot est ab l i shed st at e act i o n i n C o untT en. S u b sta n tive d u e p ro c e ss r igh ts a re tho se rig h ts "c r ea t ed b y th e Cons t i tu t i on , " of w h i ch "n o a mou n tof p r o c e s s c a n j u s t i f

y [ t h e i r ] i n f

r i n g e m e n t . " Vi nyard v. Wils o n , 3 1 1 F .3 d1 3 4 0 , 1 3 5 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e p la in l ang uag e of

the Fourt een t h Amendm entcont emp l at es t hat a p ers o n [*18] can be depri ved of l i f e s o l ong a s d u e p ro c e ss o f l a w is p ro v id e d . X IV A m e n d ., U .S . C o n st. ("no Stat e shal l . . . de p ri ve any pe rs o n of l i f e . . . wi t ho ut d u e p ro c e ss o f l a w " ). T h e " r ig h t t o li fe" is ac c o rd ing ly p rotect ed by Fo urt eent h A m end m entpro ced ural due p ro c e ss. Cf

. Cr uz an, 497 U. S. at293 ( J. S ca l i a, con cu r r i n g ) ( "T h e t ex t of t h e D u e Proc es s Cl au s e does n ot p ro te c t i n d ivid u a ls a g a ins t d e p riv a tio n s o f l ib e rty si mp l i cit er. I tpr ot ect s t h em ag ai n s tde pr i v at i on s of l i b erty ' w i t ho ut d ue p ro ce ss o f l aw ' " ) . A l l o f

P l ainti f f s' procedur al due pr oces s cl ai ms h ave n o w been addres s ed a n d reje c te d b y this c o u rt. A ccor di ng l y , P l ai nt i f

f s ca nn ot es t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i al l ik eli ho o d o f

succ ess o n the m erit s o r a sub st an t i al ca se o n the m eri t s o n thei r Fo urte e nt h A m end m ents ub st ant i ve du e pr oc e s s c l a i m. All W r it s Act , 28 U . S. C. § 1651Pag e 25 

### AP P E NDI X T O T HE COURT ’ S OP I NI ON

25 T he E l event h C i rcui ts t at ed that"o ur decisio ns m ake cl earthat w he r e the r el i ef s ough ti s i n e s s enc e a p re lim ina ry in

ju n c tio n , th e A ll W rits A c t i s n o t av a ilab le bec au s e ot h er , a dequ at e r em ed i es a tl aw e x i s t . " Schi avo v. Sc hi avo, N o. C V - 05- 00530- T at9 ( 11t h Ci r . M ar ch 23, 20 05 ) . Ac co rd i ngl y , the [ *19] Al l W r i t s Actc an n otbe used here t o "e vad e t h e requir em ent s f o r prel i m i nary i n j u n ct i on s . " I

d. P l ai nt i f f s (Fi rs t A m end ed ) M o t i o n f o r T em p o rary R estraining O rd er (D kt. 3 4 ) i s DE NI E D. Fi nal l y , the cour twoul d be re m i ss if i tdi d notonce agai n co nvey i t s ap p reci at i o n f o r the d i f

f i cul t i es and h e a r tb re a k the p a rtie s h a v e e n d u re d thr o u g h o u t th is

lengt hy pro cess . T he ci vi l i t y wi t h whi ch t hi s d el i cate m a tter has b een p res ent ed b y co unsel i s a cred i t t o the ir p ro f essio na l i sm an d d ed i ca t i o n to the i r resp ec t i ve cli en t s, a n d T e rr i. D O N E AN D O R D ERED i n c hamber s thi s 25t h day of M ar ch , 2005. J AM E S D. W HI T T E M ORE U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct Judge